You make a good point. I could care less if they're going to make a PRIVATE all- gay high school, ,not using valuable tax dollars. But they are using tax dollars. If they built a Catholic school on tax dollars, the liberals would freak out.
Plus, I don't even agree with the idea in general. Aren't we trying to create equality? Seperating them form normal teens isn't going to solve that problem.

If a person who is LGBT doesn't want to go to a gay high school, they don't have to. But the option should be open to them, because not all of us are strong enough to deal with kids saying "**" and "**" all of the time. They would be suspended for calling someone a "nigger" but "**" is okay. How would you like to go to a foriegn country and be abused for being American?

VERY VERY NICE. I was all ready for an anti-gay rant, but you stuck to the actual issue and brought up very good points.

Hi, I feel the obligation to state that I'm a Lieberman Democrat before going any further.
I’m not really much of a partisan. I am a strong believer in honesty, however, and wordpainter241 does not stand by this principal. Okay, I’ll amend that: he got a fact wrong.
He attributed an environmental quote that actually comes from Vice President Quayle. It’s an embarrassing act of dishonesty that I gave Pocket Jericho fanfiction a lot of grief over. Jericho never issued a retraction, and has since removed his email address from the public.
Just so you know, I believe that when Winston Churchill said “the truth is so precious, it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies,” that he was full of crap.
P.S.
Bush is alright by me.

Just another note: I go to a school for motivated learners and I am openly gay. I've not had one problem. Not ever. Gays really don't need their own environment. That would just make the problem worse. By separating the students, they would be giving up the battle which they so dedicatedly fight. So they really don't need a school of their own; they only need a "gay-friendly" school.

I agree. That kind of thing would be great, but it shouldn't be publically (sp?) funded.

Oh boy! A Bushie! This will be fun!
I love that you say that Liberalism is a declining trend when, according to polls, most people think like Liberals. They don't want to say it, of course, but they do.
Most people think that women should be able to choose.
Most people don't like the death penalty.
Most people think that the environment is important.
And you know what?
MOST PEOPLE THINK THAT G. W. BUSH HAS ROYALLY SCREWED OUR COUNTRY.
I feel sorry for those people, though, because they don't want to call themselves Liberal and because they will probably vote for Bush again anyway.
And I know you don't want me to harp on this, but I doubt you wanted me to post at all, so just for the hell of it, let me say this.
GEORGE BUSH DID NOT WIN. When did winning require you to disregard thousands of Democratic votes? Oh yeah! I forgot! Guess who's governor of Florida? Yep! Jeb! Georgie's lovable brother, stepping in to sweep a few minority votes under the rug!
So, I guess Liberalism is only a decining idealology if the government is being controlled by close-minded Conservatives who didn't play by the rules and were elected thanks to Saudi Royalty and Daddie's money.
Oh, and RCS, I guess the only people hanging on to the notion that Bush stole the election are the whiny nitwits who want to know that their country is being run fairly and that their votes are being counted. And, hey, who cares about them anyway?
Obviously not you.
-SNORKY

Oh come on, it really depends who you get your stats from doesn't it? Yeah, if you're on w.conservativevoter.com then sure everything is PRO-Republican, what planet do you think we're all on?
"Now I won’t go into this any further, because I’m not in the mood to put up with the argument from the left that President Bush didn’t really win the election. He won. He won fairly. He won according to the guidelines laid out in our Constitution. Get over it!" Ok, we'll agree to disagree because the votes should have been recounted according to Florida law, and they weren't, so in affect, the Supreme Court contradicted themselves. Who cares? After all, subverting democracy and quashing civil liberties is a recurring them when it comes to Mr Bush isn't it? (Think: PATRIOT ACT 2001- the most constitutionally wrong piece of legislation I have ever laid eyes on)
You know, way back during the American civil war, Republicans were decent people. Abraham Lincoln? Great guy, good Republican. I still can't figure out how you people got so screwed between then and now.
Commander of the right? My friend, in politics, right is more often than not, very, very, very wrong. Liberalism is not bad. It is not weak. It just chooses bad leaders. Republicans aren't much better really: look at Bush. According to him, pollution's not the problem, it's just the impurities in the air and water. I mean, pick your poison, you're more than entitled to be a Republican, but I think you'll find that if you look at a different, impartial news source, that the balance between right and left is very much alive and well and there should not have to be any "fight" against Liberalism. Liberals aren't fighting you, and don't see Republicans as a threat. Why Republicans are always so keen to pick a fight, I don't know.

Well, you attack Gray Davis for not doing what the people want, and yet, you idolize George Bush, despite the fact that more people voted for Gore.
Funny how conservative logic works, isn't it?

hmm...
i agree with the first chapter. it is terrible that there is persecution against people excercising their freedom of choice and lifestyle in this country, but isolating them is not the way to fix it.
second chapter:
i dont believe in this trend. sorry. i know its a terrible blow.
clinton: nobody tried to impeach him because of how he was running the country. he lied about something that should be no business of the US of A (who gives a flying feck who he's ** as long as he's doing his duty to the citizens of his country. now dont tell me morals get into it. indeed he is a scoundrel, but no more so than any past president with a lover, but in those times it wasn't decent for the media to gorge itself upon it.) clinton's attempted impeachment was conservative based and became a media blitz. i hope it wasn't because they were bored, there are much better things they could have been using their considerable force upon.
the "victory" of bush: no victory, not if the american people count. look at the popular vote, which is the true voice of the american people. bush lost. i cant say gore would have done better, but discussing that is useless.
as for mr. Romney, (did somebody say he was the MA gov.?) sounds grand. problem is, what does he have besides this english program? either way, i bet he'd be better than darling gov. Roland (Republican gov. of CT who has been there he is growing mouldy from his repeated raping of the state. and bush wanted to give him a nomination to one of his anti-terror orgs... imagine if he got it. ugh. anyway done with that one.
as for gray davis, dont associate idiocy and liberalism when they are not truly linked. by all means do so when they are, but remember that conservatives can be just as obscenely stupid as the worst liberal.
cheers, thanks for the opinions.
-piranha

You might be right about the public funding issue, I'm not sure how that works in your country.
But as to the rest:
You say "I have no objection to an all gay school if it acts like all other private schools and gets money from donations and tuition rather than from the tax payer" but then you list arguments that do object, funding aside! Contradicting yourself doesn't help your credibility.
The second half of your essay is sheer bigotry. Presumably you're not gay, so why are you telling gays how to run their lives and institutions? What has that got to do with you? Live and let live. If they want their own "all gay colleges and all gay corporations" let them! No skin off your nose or mine.
Sounds to me like you are trying to be edgy and controversial just for the sake of it. Not cool man.

He won according to Supreme Court rulings maybe, but since when is banning mass numbers of registered democrats from the poles legal?

There is no trend towards a national aversion to liberal ideology, any more so than a similar trend towards an aversion to conservativism. The majority of Americans are centrists who do not identify with leftists or rightists, Democrats or Republicans.
The only popular trend that holds weight is one that dismisses the childish bickering of the undemocratic two-party system (in which you only get one more choice than the Soviets had) and is in favor of common-sense ideals. The reason Americans are so apathetic to politics is because we don't have any real choices.
You, as a conservative, see it differently, as I'm sure a liberal would see it differently. But frankly, I am getting fed up with a system in which you must choose the lesser of two evils. *That* is the real trend.
Furthermore, Clinton was impeached due to partisan politics and power-mongering and plain-old jealousy. Gore lost the last presidential election because of corrupt election processes throughout the country. Moreover, the popular vote was split 50/50 among the small percentage of voters who actually showed up at the polls. 50 million Bush supporters among the 260 million Americans do not amount for a conservative revolution.
It's also doubtful that Gov. Romney's gubernatorial win was due to a massive "right shift." Voters' party affiliations do not nessesarily predict the winner of a race; you can vote for whoever you like, regardless of their party affiliation. It seems to me that you just like Romney's politics.
As for Gov. Davis, the recall effort was co-opted by the Republican Party before being handed over to the media. The fact that he was recalled was due to politics of hatred stoked by the media and the polititians on both the left and the right.
These incidents you mention are isolated incidents. There is no massive trend toward conservativism, and to asume as much from the last few election years is a mistake. The nature of partisan politics is more cyclical; you'll have the right-wingers win in one season, and the left wingers win in the next season. Back and forth, back and forth...it never ends.

I'm honestly a bit iffy on the subject of the new Harvey Milk School. On one hand, it provides a haven for GLBT students who suffer rigorous persecution in the school system, but on the other, its latent result is to perpetuate segregation. I believe that our schools must re-introduce a concept known as "Discipline" into our schools. Bullying must be rigorously stamped out so that our schools can be safe havens of learning. Those who resort to bullying tactics must be reformed for their own safety as well as the safety of their peers. Furthermore, schools should focus on promoting *acceptance* of others (not merely 'tolerance') as a means of reducing bigotry and therefore the need for segregated schools like Harvey Milk High.
Both of these things should involve student's families as much as the school, since it is primarily the family which socializes kids.
These are my general thoughts on the subject; now on to your essay. Overall, some of what you have said makes sense, but there are some things I need to point out:
Harvey Milk is not a private school; it is a public school with a selection process for its students; this does not make it a 'private' school. Other specialized schools (college preperatory schools such as Stuyvesant High and Brooklyn Tech, for example) rely on these screening processes as a means of maintaining standards. It is a free and open process, just like applying for a public college/university.
In addition, comparing Harvey Milk High to parochial Catholic schools is a mistake. The school does not promote any religion, as it is a public school, although it does cater to the needs and interests of GLBT students. We have 'magnet schools' that cater to certain academic disciplines; this is not the same as a privately funded or parochial school, which serves the interests of the religious community.
However, you make good points when you question the effectiveness of the school. It is only a partial solution and has its pros and cons, and the school system should be finding more proactive solutions towards exterminating bullying and homophobia. The goal is integration, not separation. A common sense ideal that polititians cannot seem to grasp.
As for Harvey Milk High, I wouldn't say it's a 'terrible' idea though, as there is a real need for such a haven considering the amount of homphobia in our society.

I read something about this gay high school on w.the-n.com.
I agree with you that a 'gay high school' is wrong because it separates people and discriminates against straight students. However, that's not what this school is.
It is primarily for the groups you listed, but will accept all students. It is intended to provide a kind environment for any student who feels he has been persecuted in public school.
It may seem like the bullies are winning, but that's not important. What's important is everyone can feel safe at school and focus on learning.